Techdirt. Stories filed under "governance"Easily digestible tech news...https://www.techdirt.com/
en-usTechdirt. Stories filed under "governance"https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/td-88x31.gifhttps://www.techdirt.com/Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:45:03 PSTAbusing The Surveillance Scandal To Punish Internet Freedom Even MoreLarry Downeshttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131114/17382925250/abusing-surveillance-scandal-to-punish-internet-freedom-even-more.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131114/17382925250/abusing-surveillance-scandal-to-punish-internet-freedom-even-more.shtmlrecent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Senators Ron Wyden and John Thune highlight the growing hostility to American-based Internet companies from
foreign governments that range from China to Brazil to the countries of the E.U. Each of these
governments is aggressively pressing trade policies that would limit the free flow of information-
based products and services.

The Senators, in what might at first blush seem a rare display of bi-partisanship, urge U.S.
negotiators in on-going talks over existing or proposed trade agreements to press for free trade
in digital goods, and to "protect America's digital economy from the political and protectionist
scruples of foreign leaders."

Such agreements have historically dealt exclusively with trade involving physical goods, but
now the focus is on information. As more and more of the world's commerce -- both physical
and intangible -- moves online, we are witnessing a replay of the kind of trade wars that plagued
world economies during much of the Industrial Revolution, with developing nations (then
including the U.S.) using tariffs and other restrictions to prop up local industries. The goal of
protectionism, then as now, was both to weaken the prospects for foreign companies and to
impose political punishments in largely or even wholly unrelated international disputes.
Senators Wyden and Thune, along with many of their colleagues in Congress and the
Administration, are right to push harder for digital free trade. Despite the obvious social and
economic benefits of unrestricted global commerce and the innately international nature of the
Internet ecosystem, digital goods and services today are often regulated more severely than
physical goods.

Digital trade has, unfortunately, rekindled long-dormant and ultimately counter-productive
protectionist tendencies. That's both because they are new and, in many economies, the only
hope of significant growth. (Google, admittedly not a fully objective party in such disputes,
posted an outstanding white paper on the topic back in 2010 -- a good background for anyone just
tuning in here.)

With notable exceptions (i.e., copyright), the U.S. has long been a consistent and authoritative
voice of progressive policies here, a rare example where partisan politics have not infected the
long-term interests of U.S. and non-U.S. constituencies.

But that authority, as the Senators acknowledge, has been significantly destabilized in the wake
of on-going leaks over U.S. domestic and foreign electronic surveillance conducted under both
the USA Patriot and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Acts.

Over the last six months, U.S. allies and not-so-friendly nations alike have seized on leaked
information regarding the nature and scope of NSA and other U.S. government data collection
and analysis as potent ammunition in some core struggles over the future of the global Internet.
"In light of the recent revelations about the National Security Agency," Wyden and Thune write,
"foreign consumers have understandably raised questions about the privacy of their online data.
Unfortunately, these surveillance programs are giving cover to some trading partners to take
measures against American technology companies under the auspices of protecting privacy. New
digital trade rules are needed to be sure that current privacy concerns are not a stalking horse for
protectionism."

But it's not just protectionism. Depending on the country or region, the surveillance revelations
are being used as evidence (1) of the need for continued or even enhanced limits on U.S.-based
cloud service providers, (2) of U.S. hypocrisy in pushing for digital free speech and other human
rights in more repressive countries, and (3) to renew the argument that national governments
need more control over Internet governance.

The free trade leg of this unholy tripod argues the severe and often secretive restrictions being
placed on U.S.-based cloud service providers undermines their ability to protect the privacy
of content hosted on behalf of non-U.S. residents and companies. These services, some
governments now assert, should therefore be limited by law in favor of local industries who
operate under local regulations that are more protective (at least on paper) of the privacy interests
of their users.

The human rights counter-offensive is little more than a "gotcha" argument that the U.S. has lost
its moral authority to advocate on behalf of citizens in countries such as Iran, China and Russia.
Given that the U.S. is subjecting U.S. and non-U.S. citizens to sweeping electronic surveillance
despite the Bill of Rights, these countries and their proxies urge, their own surveillance and
repression can't be criticized. We're no worse than you, in other words.

The governance leg, finally, is a renewal of the putsch that was attempted and ultimately
defeated as part of the International Telecommunications Union’s WCIT conference in Dubai
late last year. Proponents of these and other anti-Internet initiatives tried to use a redrafting of
U.N. telecommunications treaties as a back door to dismantle the engineering-driven, multi-stakeholder Internet governance model at the heart of what has made the digital ecosystem
so successful. The U.S. government has too much influence over Internet governance, the
argument continues to be made, now with new evidence to support it.

Those who are using the surveillance scandal to argue for commercially-crippling U.S.-based
Internet and cloud services, for deflecting digital human rights advocacy, and for destroying
the multi-stakeholder governance system are practicing the worst kind of hypocrisy. Most don't
care at all about the revelations (or worse, are complicit in them). They are simply looking for
any ammunition at hand to deploy in long-standing and often counter-productive objectives --
objectives that were well on their way to righteous defeat.

In many cases, the governments using the surveillance scandal have equally dirty hands. There
are a lot of crocodile tears being shed about practices most if not all national governments surely
knew was going on anyway. The leaks have made clear that some of the very same governments
now wringing their hands are themselves past masters of the trade, and in many cases are
themselves grateful users of much of the data the U.S. agencies have collected.

To these arguments, Internet users should speak as one: A pox on all your houses.

Unfortunately, and likely unintentionally, Internet users worldwide are doubly victims here.
The surveillance scandal has provided new rhetorical opportunities to urge remedies that are
almost certainly worse than the surveillance problem itself. Worse, that is, for users.

It would be bitter justice if the debate over a more appropriate balance between national security
and the privacy of innocent citizens instead promoted the interests of those whose true goals are
not enhanced privacy protection, but likely its opposite. What these advocates really want is
to slow the growth of cloud-based services for economic and political reasons, to suppress the
potential of technology to advance democratic goals, and to bring the digital ecosystem to heel
beneath the dead hand of jealous and incompetent national governments.

To be clear, I have no intention here to appear to be shooting the messenger. As I wrote both
long before and soon after the recent media firestorm over surveillance, it's difficult even to
debate the merits of counter-terrorism measures when we know so little about what is actually
being done. Both the Patriot Act and FISA are grossly deficient, at the very least, in providing
both transparency and oversight, essential elements of meaningful democratic deliberation.
The sooner we introduce meaningful reform to those aspects of the laws, the sooner we can go
back to fighting to preserve and expand digital free trade, human rights, and multi-stakeholder
Internet governance.

In that regard, the joint editorial from Senators Wyden and Thune is not really so surprising. In
each of these areas, Congress (along with both Republican and Democratic White Houses) has
long demonstrated bi-partisan support for the best answers -- "best" economically and politically.

The U.S. long held the moral high ground on these issues. We need to earn it back.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>hypocrisy-is-everywherehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20131114/17382925250Fri, 14 Dec 2012 06:42:26 PSTITU Boss In Denial: Claims Success, Misrepresents Final Treaty, As US, UK, Canada And Many More Refuse To SignMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121214/05385721386/itu-boss-denial-claims-success-misrepresents-final-treaty-as-us-uk-canada-many-more-refuse-to-sign.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121214/05385721386/itu-boss-denial-claims-success-misrepresents-final-treaty-as-us-uk-canada-many-more-refuse-to-sign.shtmlgoing back on explicit promises that the treaty would (a) not be about the internet and (b) would only be completed by consensus, rather than by majority vote -- the US lived up to itspromise not to support such a treaty by officially stating that it would not sign. A number of other countries quickly followed suit including: the UK, Canada, Denmark, Australia, Norway, Costa Rica, Serbia, Greece, Finland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Sweden, New Zealand, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Qatar (though some apparently said they could not sign because they first had to consult with their own governments -- so it's possible that some of these may change their mind, but many viewed such statements as a more diplomatic way of refusing to sign).

The US, on the other hand, was explicit in refusing to sign:

"It's with a heavy heart and a sense of missed opportunities that the US must communicate that it's not able to sign the agreement in the current form," said US Ambassador to WCIT Terry Kramer. "The Internet has given the world unimaginable economic and social benefit during these past 24 years. All without UN regulation. We candidly cannot support an ITU Treaty that is inconsistent with the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance," Kramer added.

The US delegation also laid out the specific reasons why it refused to sign, and they're the same issues we've been talking about all along: (1) the attempt to expand the definition of the types of entities covered by the treaty from the big telcos to just about everyone running network (2) the explicit inclusion of internet and internet governance in the treaty (3) the claim of a mandate over cybersecurity and (4) the official regulation of spam. That last one hasn't received as much attention, but the US found the rules put forth for dealing with spam going way too far, and putting in place rules that would violate the First Amendment.

Of course, with so many countries bailing out, the ITU's promise that this would all be about consensus look positively laughable in retrospect. But, perhaps even more laughable is the response from ITU boss Hamadoun Toure whose claims read like those of a bureaucrat in complete denial. First he claimed complete "surprise" that the US and other countries walked away:

I couldn’t imagine they wouldn’t sign it. I especially was surprised by the reasons that were put in place. I had made it clear from the opening that [Internet and content were not a part of the discussion]. I invited ICANN to show that we want to build bridges. The telecoms society and internet society need to work together. I made an appeal to please help us build bridges. The fighting will not help the consumer that we are trying to reach here.

He kept going on and on insisting that the internet and internet governance were not a part of the agreement, even though they are. Of course, he then effectively admits that part of the goal is to be the key player in the internet

I have been saying in the run up to this conference that this conference is not about governing the Internet. I repeat that the conference did NOT include provisions on the Internet in the treaty text. Annexed to the treaty is a non-binding Resolution which aims at fostering the development and growth of the internet – a task that ITU has contributed significantly to since the beginning of the Internet era, and a task that is central to the ITU’s mandate to connect the world, a world that today still has two thirds of its population without Internet access.

So it's not about the internet, but the internet is central to the ITU's mandate. Of course, this claim is also a lie. The ITU's mandate does not cover the internet, but telecom infrastructure. One of the more nefarious moves by Toure and the ITU in this whole process was to continually blur the lines between telecom infrastructure and the internet, as if they were one and the same.

The word “Internet” was repeated throughout this conference and I believe this is simply a recognition of the current reality – the two worlds of telecommunications and Internet are inextricably linked. I demonstrated that from the very beginning by inviting my friend Fadi Chehadé, the CEO of ICANN, to address our conference at the beginning.

So... again, he's saying two different things. First, he claims that the treaty has nothing to do with the internet, and then insists that telecommunications and the internet are "inextricably linked," which explains why the treaty pretty clearly would impact internet governance -- which is why so many nations are refusing to sign.

Finally, there's this bit of self-aggrandizing bullshit:

History will show that this conference has achieved something extremely important. It has succeeded in bringing unprecedented public attention to the different and important perspectives that govern global communications. There is not one single world view but several, and these views need to be accommodated and engaged.

WCIT has shown us this truth and we have worked hard together to find a way that is acceptable to all. Let WCIT be the beginning of this dialogue. As our two worlds increasingly converge so must we increasingly converse and find a common way.

To be honest, this feels like a speech that was written before the events of the past two weeks, perhaps at that secret meeting to plan its media strategy. To sit there and claim that WCIT was about finding a way "acceptable to all" and one in which the focus was on "finding a common way" is especially laughable, given how the whole thing concluded. History may very well show that something extremely important was achieved, but it may just be that the achievement was demonstrating clearly what a charade the ITU is, and making it clear that it is not the right organization to have anything to do with internet issues. The ITU has been shown, once again, to be an out-of-date, out-of-touch, obsolete organization searching for relevance.

The simple fact is that the world does not need an ITU to "enable" the internet. The internet was built and expanded rapidly through other means, driven by demand and what it enabled people to do. The current system is not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination, but it has been working, and shifting to a model driven by international bureaucrats was never in the cards.

The internet does not need the ITU. The ITU needed the internet to remain relevant. The internet, however, does not work that way, and any attempt to move it into such a system of bureaucratic oversight was doomed from the start.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>this is not consensushttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121214/05385721386Wed, 2 Nov 2011 15:15:27 PDTIndia Wants UN Body To Run The Internet: Would That Be Such A Bad Thing?Glyn Moodyhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111102/04561716601/india-wants-un-body-to-run-internet-would-that-be-such-bad-thing.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111102/04561716601/india-wants-un-body-to-run-internet-would-that-be-such-bad-thing.shtmlhordes of cyber criminals, but from the politicians themselves. Alongside national legislation like E-PARASITE and international treaties such as ACTA, there is this proposal that a UN body should take over the running of the whole system:

The Indian government has formally proposed a government takeover of the Internet at the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

In a statement sent yesterday, India argued for the creation of a new body to be called the United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP) which would develop Internet policies, oversee all Internet standards bodies and policy organizations, negotiate Internet-related treaties, and act as an arbitrator in Internet-related disputes.

The CIRP would exist under the United Nations, comprise of 50 Member States, be funded by the United Nations, run by staff from the UN’s Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) arm, and report directly to the UN General Assembly.

Despite the proposal representing an extraordinary shift from the status quo to a single, purely government-run Internet body, India’s spokesman, Mr Dushyant Singh, argued that the proposal “should not be viewed as an attempt by governments to ‘take over’ or ‘regulate and circumscribe’ the Internet.”

In a nod to the multi-stakeholder model of decision-making that currently defines much of the Internet’s processes - and where all actors from business to academia to the technical community and governments are given equal say in decisions - the Indian proposal foresees the creation of four “Advisory Groups” that would represent civil society, the private sector, inter-governmental and international organizations, and the technical and academic community.

Those groups would provide recommendations to the CIRP. The CIRP would consider them, along input from the existing Internet Governance Forum, at an annual two-week conference at the UN building in Geneva and then present its own subsequent recommendations to the UN General Assembly.

As the author of that report, Kieren McCarthy, points out:

A very similar proposal to that proposed this week was published by a joint group of the Indian, South African and Brazilian governments just prior to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Nairobi last month and caused some controversy when it clearly implied that the proposal came with the support of civil society and the technical community.

Its recommendations, which also foresaw all Internet organizations being pulled under the control of a new government-run United Nations body, were disowned by civil society and they then received a definitive thumbs-down from the broader Internet community during the IGF open session on “critical Internet resources”, during which the Indian government representative stated that the paper had only been put out for discussion.

Despite the very negative response to that paper, however, the Indian government pressed ahead with discussions on the exact same lines at an IBSA Summit on 18 October in Durban, South Africa. And the result of that meeting was the proposal put to the UN General Assembly yesterday.

That would suggest that the Indian proposal doesn't really stand much of a chance, and many will doubtless cheer that, seeing it as a dangerous attempt to "take over" the Internet – despite India's assurances to the contrary.

If a UN Committee for Internet-Related Policies, adequately linked to multi-stakeholder public sphere, were able to set global norms for the Internet in an adequately open and inclusive manner, then neither the US government, corrupted by big-pocketed IP rights-holders, nor repressive governments such as China, would be able to regulate the Internet in isolation from these norms.

Now, some might say that governments have no role in setting policy norms for the Internet, even if it is in consultation with other stakeholders. In the long run, I agree: we should be able to develop a multi-stakeholder transnational governance mechanism that is not grounded in the nation-state. But we are far from that position now, and it is those most opposed to Internet governance reform who make this point most often, when opposing a norm-setting role for the IGF. They insist that the discussions at the IGF should merely inform norm-setting processes that take place at higher levels.

But where are those norms to be set, where no authoritative transnational institution already exists to set them? Unless an expansion of the IGF's mandate can be considered, then clearly some new mechanism is required. This was recognised at WSIS [World Summit on the Information Society] in 2005 when an "enhanced cooperation" mechanism was mandated, and it remains equally true today. The Indian proposal for a UN Committee for Internet-Related Policies is the first serious attempt by any government to propose such a mechanism, and for this it is to be welcomed. Civil society ought not to fall into the trap of rejecting this proposal out of hand, if the alternative is to leave existing more narrow Internet governance hegemonies unchallenged.

It's an important point: after all, the way the Internet is run and developed at the moment is hardly perfect. As Malcolm notes:

some of the most important areas of public policy online are not governed by multi-stakeholder networks at all, not even by any existing intergovernmental organisations, but by individual national governments and big businesses. The most blind to this seem to be representatives of technical community, who for practical purposes maintain a very narrow pre-WGIG [Working Group on Internet Governance] definition of Internet governance that excludes vital issues such as intellectual property enforcement, privacy and data protection, online filtering and censorship and network neutrality.

It is precisely those issues that are driving many of the recent ill-conceived legislative proposals around the world aimed at "taming" the Internet. Maybe we do need a new approach to Internet governance; whether or not the Indian initiative is the way forward, it is a at least raising some crucial questions.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>can't-go-on-like-thishttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111102/04561716601Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:32:05 PDTAs Companies Go Public, Power Stays PrivateJoseph Weisenthalhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070829/071407.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070829/071407.shtmlVMWare's meteoric launch out of the gate. While this is good news for companies and their investors, Kevin Kelleher argues that we're seeing a disturbing trend in the way these deals go down. In many instances, the terms of the deal are such that the general public shareholder has little power in the newly-public company, with most voting power concentrated in the hands of a select few insiders. What's more, in many instances, the companies have sold stakes in themselves to certain outside investors at a price below what was available to the public. It's easy to argue that such moves represent greed and a desire to keep the spoils concentrated, but there may be other reasons for these actions. As the rise of private stock exchanges suggests, public shareholders are increasingly seen as a liability, whether it's due to the threat of shareholder lawsuits or activist investors. Kelleher's concern is for the "little guy", as he puts it, but it's not clear that most investors actually care about things like voting rights. As long as investors understand where they're at, and can weigh the risks accordingly, certain trends in governance structure shouldn't be particularly worrisome.